The US Supreme Court’s recent ruling in the case of Sandoz v Amgen led to industry speculation that biosimilar applicants could lack incentive to participate in the information exchange process with reference product sponsors, or the so-called “patent dance,” provided for under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA).
The US Supreme Court’s recent ruling in the case of Sandoz v Amgen led to industry speculation that biosimilar applicants could lack incentive to participate in the information exchange process with reference product sponsors, or the so-called “patent dance,” provided for under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA).
Yet as Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler attorneys Irena Royzman and Nathan Monroe-Yavneh write at the firm’s Biologics Blog, following the steps of the patent dance still holds significant benefits for biosimilar developers. According to Royzman and Monroe-Yavneh, one of the most compelling benefits of the patent dance is that it allows a biosimilar applicant to limit the scope of patents that can be addressed by the first wave of BPCIA litigation.
Under the BPCIA, the reference product sponsor and the biosimilar applicant engage in patent litigation in 2 stages: the first stage begins with a negotiation over which patents to litigate. While the reference manufacturer may hope to bring all of the patents it wants to assert in the first wave of litigation, the biosimilar applicant can cap the number of patents that it wants to challenge during the initial period. The parties then exchange lists of patents, with each list capped at the number determined by the biosimilar developer, and concur on the final range of patents that are then litigated.
AbbVie and Boehringer Ingelheim’s (BI) recent litigation over adalimumab (Humira) illustrates the benefits of the information exchange for the biosimilar developer: while AbbVie claimed that BI will infringe on 74 of its patents, and proposed a single phase of litigation for all of them, BI was able to limit the patent list for the first wave to 8.
Royzman and Monroe-Yavneh also point out that following the steps of the BPCIA gives applicants control over the timing of litigation. The second wave of patent litigation, during which all remaining patents that the reference product sponsor wishes to assert can be litigated, commences after a biosimilar developer files its 180-day notice of commercial marketing. That trigger leaves the timing of the second, and potentially more extensive, litigation period in the hands of the biosimilar applicant.
However, as Ha Kung Wong of Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper and Scinto told The Center for Biosimilars® in a recent interview, those benefits may not be compelling for biosimilar applicants currently seeking to launch products. “We’ve already seen that some biosimilar applicants would prefer to forego the patent dance entirely,” said Wong. “Currently, the biosimilars in late-stage development are for blockbuster drugs that have been on the market since the 1990s. And because they’ve been on the market for so long, many are covered by only a handful of unexpired patents. So under those circumstances, biosimilar applicants may not see any incentive to participate in this dance.”
That trend could change, however, as biosimilar developers shift their focus to newer biologics. According to Wong, “biosimilar applicants will begin targeting newer drugs not long after data exclusivity expires. Under those circumstances, with larger patent portfolios and longer expiration dates, the certainty that the patent dance provides could be valuable to biosimilar applicants.”
However, the Federal Circuit has not yet clarified a lingering question of the Sandoz v Amgen ruling—namely, whether injunctions are available under state law for the failure to provide initial disclosures. The outcome of that question could have bearing on applicants’ willingness to participate in the patent dance. According to Wong, “If the initial disclosures under the BPCIA are essentially optional, biosimilar applicants may decide there isn’t enough of an incentive to participate, and may choose to force brand drug makers to operate in the dark as they assert basically all patents at once after they receive notice of commercial marketing.”
For both biosimilar developers and reference product sponsors, Wong says, “There’s still plenty to be concerned about.”
Julie Reed: Why 2024 Is Important for Biosimilars
April 17th 2024Julie Reed, executive director of the Biosimilars Forum, showcases how the biosimilar industry is expected to develop throughout 2024, including major policy changes and hope for continued improvement in market share for adalimumab biosimilars.
A New Chapter: How 2023 Will Shape the US Biosimilar Space for 2024 and Beyond
December 31st 2023On this episode of Not So Different, Cencora's Brian Biehn and Corey Ford take a look back at major policy and regulatory advancements in 2023 and how these changes will alter the space going forward.
Alvotech’s Stelara Biosimilar, Selarsdi, Receives FDA Approval
April 16th 2024Alvotech’s Selarsdi (ustekinumab-aekn), a biosimilar referencing Stelara (ustekinumab), gained FDA approval, making it the second ustekinumab biosimilar and second for the company to be given the green light for the American market.
The Subcutaneous Revolution: Zymfentra and the Future of IBD Care With Dr Andres Yarur
December 17th 2023On this episode of Not So Different, Andres Yarur, MD, a researcher and associate professor of medicine at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, discusses the significance of the FDA approval for Zymfentra, the world's first subcutaneous infliximab product, for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).
BioRationality: Removing the Misconceptions Surrounding Interchangeability
April 15th 2024Sarfaraz K. Niazi, PhD, outlines the current state of interchangeable biosimilars in the US and policy changes needed to clear up misconceptions surrounding the meaning behind interchangeability designations.
Biosimilars Council: PBM Rebate Schemes Cost Americans, Payers $6 Billion
April 10th 2024A report from the Biosimilars Council evaluating IQVIA data found that rebate schemes orchestrated by pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) are costing US patients and payers billions of dollars by suppressing biosimilar adoption.